Exhaustion of remedies

Exhaustion of remedies is a legal doctrine requiring courts to refrain from considering a dispute until after the plaintiff has exhausted more direct remedies available to him. Often this is simply called "exhaustion doctrine."

This doctrine has two types. There is a requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies for disputes that are pending before agencies or other quasi-judicial tribunals. There is also a requirement of exhaustion of state remedies when a plaintiff seeks access to federal court instead of pursuing his claim more directly in state court.

“

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is one of the fundamental principles of administrative law and jurisprudence. The doctrine is broadly stated as the withholding of judicial relief on a claim or dispute cognizable by an administrative agency until the administrative process has run its course. Zar v. S.D. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 376 N.W.2d 54 (S.D. 1985); Gottschalk v. Hegg, 89 S.D. 89, 228 N.W.2d 640 (1975); see also Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S. Ct. 459, 82 L. Ed. 638 (1938). In South Dakota, the exhaustion doctrine has been codified in the Administrative Procedures Act (SDCL ch. 1-26). SDCL 1-26-30 states: "A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within any agency ... is entitled to judicial review under this chapter." The classic example of failure to exhaust an administrative remedy is the failure to appeal from an administrative decision to a higher tribunal within the administrative system. 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 608.

”

Johnson v. Kolman, Div. of Athey Prods. Corp., 412 N.W.2d 109, 111 (S.D. 1987).

There are exceptions to the exhaustion of remedies doctrine when it would be futile for a plaintiff to pursue the more direct relief.